NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1137OpenMr. Paul G. Scully, Vice President, Grote Manufacturing Company, State Route 7, Post Office Box 766, Madison, Indiana 47250; Mr. Paul G. Scully Vice President Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7 Post Office Box 766 Madison Indiana 47250; Dear Mr. Scully: This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1973, which request written confirmation that Standard 125, Warning devices, 49 CFR 571.125, requires the lower edge of the reflective surface of the equilateral triangle to be not less that 1 inch above the ground.; Your interpretation of the is correct. The device consists of a equilateral triangle and a support structure. S5.2.3 requires the outer border of the triangular portion to be red reflex reflective material and the inner border of the triangular portion to be orange fluorescent material. Therefore only that portion of the device within these borders is the 'equilateral triangle' and that portion outside these borders is the support structure.; The support structure must of course touch the ground at some point and the standard permits a support design which includes a horizontal base member less than 1 inch from the ground. It is the reflective surface within the borders that must be not less than 1 inch from the ground.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht93-8.18OpenDATE: November 16, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Dennis G. Moore to John Womack (OCC-8992) TEXT: We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, "requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted." It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches "'inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles." With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...." The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to "indicate" the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point. |
|
ID: 8992Open Mr. Dennis G. Moore Dear Mr. Moore: We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, "requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted." It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches "'inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles." With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to "indicate" the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/16/93 |
1993 |
ID: 09-008774 223OpenMr. S. Lafferty Manager, Engineering Maxon 10321 Greenleaf Avenue Santa Fe Springs, CA 90760 Dear Mr. Lafferty: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear impact guards, and No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether the horizontal member of a rear impact guard may be composed of multiple pieces, as long as the guard passes the requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. Our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. FMVSS No. 223 applies to rear impact guards as items of motor vehicle equipment. Nothing in the standard requires the horizontal member to be composed of a single piece. S5.1 of the standard specifies that the horizontal member of each guard, when viewed from the rear as it would be installed on a trailershall have a vertical height of at least 100 [millimeters (mm)] at each point across the guard width. If your guard is composed of multiple pieces, each horizontal member must have a vertical height of at least 100 mm at each point. S5.2 of the standard specifies strength and energy absorption requirements at test locations P1, P2, and P3. As long as your guard meets S5.2 at P1, P2, and P3 when tested according to S6 of the standard, the horizontal member may be composed of multiple pieces. FMVSS No. 224 applies to trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. This standard requires the vehicles to be equipped with a rear impact guard that is certified as meeting Standard No. 223. We do not interpret FMVSS No. 224 to require the horizontal member of the guard to be composed of a single piece. If the vehicle can meet the requirements in the standard regarding the guards width, height and rear surface location, the horizontal member of the guard may be composed of multiple pieces. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 5/26/2010 |
2010 |
ID: nht90-4.11OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: September 17, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-89 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 8-7-90 from W.T. Mullen to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5082) TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safet y belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front s eating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to yo ur concerns. I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 l etter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the po lice cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars. Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement o n behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars wit hout violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois. I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case o f a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. |
|
ID: subaru.cargocageOpenMr. Don Bearden Dear Mr. Bearden: This is in response to your letter of July 2, 2001, requesting an interpretation of testing requirements for the Bumper Standard at 49 CFR Part 581. You state that Subaru of America, Inc. ("Subaru") intends to introduce, in the latter part of 2002, a new "crossover" vehicle that will be classified as a passenger car for the purposes of Part 581 and other standards, but will have an open cargo area with rear access through a tailgate that will lie in a horizontal position when it is opened. You state that Subaru is investigating whether it should make available, for dealer or owner installation, an accessory for the new vehicle that you refer to as a "cargo cage." You describe this accessory as a "u-shaped tubular frame device that mounts in the rear of the vehicle when the tailgate is in its open, horizontal position for the purpose of restraining any cargo from falling out of the vehicle." You state that the cargo cage will be anchored to the sides of the cargo area by pins that will allow the cage to be "rotated between a horizontal position on top of the open tailgate and a horizontal stowed position within the vehicle cargo area," a maneuver that you state an adult can easily accomplish within 15 to 30 seconds. Given the ease of stowing the cargo cage, you express the belief that owners who install the accessory will use it in its extended position, sitting on top of the open tailgate, only on occasions when additional cargo capacity is required. You observe that because the cargo cage is designed for easy removal, it is not a permanent part of the vehicle. You further state that the owner's manual to be supplied with the vehicle "will recommend that the cage be stowed and the tailgate placed in its upright locked position in normal usage." You request confirmation that the cargo cage need not be installed in its extended position on top of the open tailgate when the new vehicle is tested for compliance with Part 581. The conditions for conducting Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. This section provides no guidance on whether a vehicle equipped with a device such as the cargo cage must be tested with the device in its deployed position. Although laboratory test procedures are issued as guidance for NHTSA's contractor laboratories and not to establish requirements that are binding on manufacturers, we note that the Laboratory Test Procedure for Part 581 (TP-581-01 dated April 25, 1990) specifies that a vehicle's hood, trunk, and doors are to be latched before pendulum impact and barrier tests are performed. Accepting this as the appropriate method for conducting Bumper Standard compliance tests, and relying on your description of the cargo cage as an easily removable accessory that will be sold with instructions that it be stowed with the tailgate in an upright locked position when not in use, we have concluded that the cargo cage need not be installed in its extended position on top of the open tailgate when the vehicles for which it is designed are tested for compliance with Part 581. If you have any further questions regarding the Bumper Standard, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of this Office at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack Ref:581 |
2001 |
ID: nht95-7.1OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Charles Holmes TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084) TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company. In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open." You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks." Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company. Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA. Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle. Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action. Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820. Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.) |
|
ID: 11084Open Mr. Charles Holmes Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company. In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle...[and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open." You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks." Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 establishes certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company. Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA. Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle. Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action. Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:206 d:9/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: aiam1937OpenMr. John M. Burlake, 1757 Yuba Street, P.O. Box 2073, Redding, CA 96001; Mr. John M. Burlake 1757 Yuba Street P.O. Box 2073 Redding CA 96001; Dear Mr. Burlake: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1975, requestin information concerning the compliance of the seat belt assembly of a 1972 BMW sedan.; Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required by section 114 of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) to affix permanently to their vehicles a certification label that confirms each vehicle's compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 detail the procedure for satisfying the certification requirement. Manufacturers are not required to furnish the Department with a certification statement.; There are three motor vehicle safety standards that relate to the sea belt assembly. Depending upon the date of manufacture of the BMW in question, it should have been certified as complying with the standards that were in effect at that time.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defect Investigation maintains a log of reported defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if you wish to ascertain whether or not there have been similar reports of seat belt assembly defects in certain 1972 BMW models, I suggest you write to that office enclosing full information on the nature of the alleged defect and the vehicle model. You may also be interested in obtaining information pursuant to the procedure described in the enclosed Federal Register notice.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: Alliance 114OpenMr. Robert Strassburger Vice President Safety Vehicle Safety and Harmonization Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 Dear Mr. Strassburger: This letter responds to your May 14, 2010 request, on behalf of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), for clarification regarding the brake transmission shift interlock (BTSI) provisions of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (K.T. Safety Act). NHTSA incorporated the BTSI provisions into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (49 CFR 571.114, S5.3), by a final rule dated March 30, 2010 (75 FR 15621). You ask for confirmation that the BTSI requirement does not apply to the gear selection control override option permitted by S5.2.4 of Standard No. 114. Our answer is the BTSI requirement would not apply to a gear selection control override. Background Currently, S5.2.2 of Standard No. 114 requires that a vehicle with a park position must be designed so that the transmission or gear selection control cannot be moved from the park position unless the key is in the starting system. An exception to this requirement is provided in S5.2.4, to allow a gear selection control override option. Specifically, S5.2.4 states, in pertinent part: The vehicle may have a device by which the user can move the gear selection control from park after the key has been removed from the system. This device must be operable by one of [three specified options]. In August 2006, the Alliance and the AIAM developed a voluntary agreement requiring full implementation of a BTSI system not later than September 1, 2010. A BTSI system requires that the service brake pedal be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position and must function in any starting system key position. A BTSI system is designed to prevent an unattended child from shifting the transmission out of the park position when the child is left in a vehicle with the vehicles key. The voluntary agreement was substantially incorporated into a self-executing provision of the K.T. Safety Act.[1] The Act specifies in Section 2(d)(1): Each motor vehicle with an automatic transmission that includes a park position manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010, shall be equipped with a system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park. This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of park. In August 2009, NHTSA issued an NPRM that proposed to incorporate the text of the BTSI requirement from the K.T. Safety Act into new paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 114.[2] AIAM commented on and generally supported that proposal, but requested a gear selection control override option analogous to that provided in S5.2.4, which would override the BTSI system and allow a vehicle to be shifted out of park without depressing the service brake. In the final rule, NHTSA rejected the AIAMs request, citing three reasons.[3] First, NHTSA noted that it was not clear that such an override is permissible within the language of the K.T. Safety Act. Second, NHTSA stated that it was outside the scope of the rulemaking to incorporate the override. Third, AIAM did not make clear why the lack of override would create the consumer backlash it had said would occur. On May 11, 2010, representatives from the AIAM and the Alliance met with NHTSA staff to explain what AIAM representatives characterized as unclear text in AIAMs comment, which you thought could have led to a possible misunderstanding by the agency of the comment. In a follow-on letter dated May 14, 2010, you wrote NHTSA clarifying that AIAM was not seeking a separate override of the BTSI system, but was instead seeking to make sure the preexisting override option of S5.2.4 continues. Discussion First, we must acknowledge the difference, as we understand it, between the AIAMs comments on the August 2009 NPRM and your current request in the May 14, 2010 letter. It is correct that we understood your comment on the August 2009 NPRM to request that we allow a separate gear selection control override option, similar to that allowed by S5.2.4, for the BTSI requirement in S5.3. We now understand your request to be limited solely to the relationship between the existing gear selection control override option in S5.2.4 and the BTSI requirement of S5.3. We address this issue below. In the August 2009 NPRM, NHTSA sought comments on four interpretations of various provisions of the K.T. Safety Act. In one in particular, we interpreted the last sentence of section 2(d) of the K.T. Safety Act, which states: This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of park. We stated in the
preamble that this sentence means that no matter the starting system position the key is in (e.g., lock, accessory, or start) the transmission must only shift out of park when the service brake is depressed.[4] We believe that the emphasized language above conveyed our understanding that a BTSI system need only function when the key is in the starting system. We do not believe that it is necessary that a BTSI system function when the key is not in the starting system. The BTSI safeguard is unnecessary when the key is not in the system because S5.2.2 of Standard No. 114 already requires that a vehicle be designed such that the transmission or gear selection control cannot be moved from the park position unless the key is in the starting system. Thus, it would be superfluous to require that a BTSI system be operational when the key is not in the starting system because the vehicle already cannot be shifted out of park in that situation (i.e., without the key in the starting system). Because the BTSI system applies only when the key is in the starting system, the BTSI requirement does not apply to the operation of a gear selection control override option allowed by S5.2.4 of Standard 114. The gear selection control override is to function (allowing the user to shift out of park) after the key has been removed from the starting system. Thus, a gear selection control override option would not be subject to the BTSI requirement, which applies only when the key is in the starting system. Although we believe that the foregoing analysis addresses your concerns, we wish to make the following clarification in response to some language in your letter. In your letter, you express concern that a BTSI system is required to be operational with the key in the vehicle but the starting system in an off position. Included in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 114 is the statement from the K.T. Safety Act: This [BTSI] system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of park. If a vehicle is designed in a manner such that the transmission cannot be shifted out of park when the starting system is in the off position (even if the key is in the starting system), the BTSI system need not function when the starting system is in the off position. As we stated above, if it is not possible to shift out of park, a BTSI system is superfluous. If a vehicle can be shifted out of park with the key in the starting system in the off position, the BTSI requirement applies to prevent the vehicle from being shifted out of park without applying the service brake. You requested in your letter that, if we cannot confirm your interpretation that the BTSI requirement does not apply to the gear selection control override option permitted by S5.2.4 of Standard No. 114, we treat your request as a petition for reconsideration of the BTSI final rule. Because we have confirmed your interpretation, we consider this letter to be a complete response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. An identical response has been sent to Mr. Michael X. Cammisa of the AIAM. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 7/20/2010 |
2010 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.